Queen's Counsel

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Chancellor on 10 February (WA 76), whether there is any other profession whose members are appointed to senior positions on the recommendation of a Minister of the Crown because it helps consumers by providing "a quality mark".

Lord Irvine of Lairg: I am aware of no other professions in which members are appointed to senior positions by Her Majesty the Queen on the recommendation of a Minister of the Crown, with the aim of providing a quality mark for consumers.

Crown Prosecution Service: Decision-making

Lord Christopher: asked the Attorney-General:
	Whether he will make a statement about the process by which decisions are reached within the Crown Prosecution Service in cases of complexity or seriousness.

Lord Goldsmith: With effect from today there will be a new approach to decision-making to assist the most senior and experienced lawyers in the CPS to make decisions in the most complex and serious cases. In future, where the case papers are particularly voluminous, the decision-maker may be assisted by another experienced lawyer, who will provide the decision-maker with a detailed analysis of the case, drawing attention to the key issues on which the decision must depend. The decision-maker may rely on this analysis, together with the essential evidence in the case papers and supplemented by such other evidence as the decision-maker chooses to consider, in applying the tests set out in the code for crown prosecutors and making his decision.
	This approach marks a change from the procedures put in place following the publication in August 1999 of the report of His Honour Gerald Butler QC into CPS decision-making in relation to deaths in custody and related matters. The recommendations in that report referred to the need for the decision-maker to read "the whole of the relevant documentation". The effect has been that the most senior lawyers in the CPS have been precluded by their other commitments from taking decisions in some of the service's most serious and important casework. The new approach will allow a more effective use of their time and will thus enable greater input by senior lawyers into the most critical casework decisions that the service faces.

Certificates of Identity

Baroness Gale: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they will take following the recent consultation on the Certificate of Identity travel document.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: On 6 February we announced that we would consult on plans to tighten the policy on issuing Certificates of Identity. We have completed the consultation as quickly as possible, as there was evidence of abuse. From 27 March, these documents will be available only to people who can prove that they need them.
	The change has proved necessary because some people who claim to have fled their home countries in fear of their lives have used our documents to travel back. Recently, we found 125 Iraqis using these documents on just 16 flights to Damascus, which is 140 miles from the Iraqi border. (There are no direct flights to Iraq). We cannot allow this to continue. We have decided that all applicants for a Certificate of Identity, including those who have indefinite leave to enter or remain, must prove that they cannot obtain a passport from the authorities of their own country. People who have exceptional leave to enter or remain (i.e. leave for a limited period) will also have to show that they need to travel for an essential reason, such as business, education, religion or compassionate circumstances. They will have to tell us which country they need to travel to and will not be allowed to go to any other countries using the Certificate of Identity.
	With this change of policy, we also intend to send a clear message that the United Kingdom takes its obligations seriously, and we expect those who benefit from our protection to do the same.

Prison Service Pay Review Body Report

Lord Hoyle: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will publish the report for 2003 of the England and Wales Prison Service Pay Review Body report.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The second report of the Prison Service Pay Review Body (PSPRB) on the pay of governing governors and operational managers, prison officers and related grades in England and Wales in 2003 has been published today and copies have been placed in the Library.
	The PSPRB has continued to be impressed by the professionalism and dedication it found among the remit group staff, particularly in view of the pressures of rising prisoner numbers. It has recommended a basic rise of 2.8 per cent, which is in line with the rate of inflation in December 2002 and other review body awards.
	My right honourable friend the Home Secretary, has decided that the recommendations will be implemented in full, with effect from the operative date of the award of 1 April 2003.
	The key recommendations of the report are:
	A 2.8 per cent increase to basic pay rates from 1 April 2003;
	Locality allowances paid to Prison Service staff in eligible areas in London and the South East will be increased from 1 April 2003:
	from £3,500 to 3,800 per annum for the top rate
	from £2,300 to £3,000 per annum for a new "higher" rate
	from £2,300 to £2,500 per annum for the middle rate
	from £1,000 to £1,100 per annum for the lower rate
	An improved performance-related progression system for operational managers from 1 April 2003 and assimilation to a new pay spine retrospectively to 1 January 2003;
	An increase of 2.8 per cent to the healthcare specialist allowance paid to prison officers from 1 April 2003. Other specialist allowances frozen at current rates; and
	Other allowances increased by 2.8 per cent.

Criminal Records Bureau

Lord Hoyle: asked Her Majesty's Government
	Whether they intend to publish the conclusions and recommendations of the independent review team on the Criminal Records Bureau, and the Government's response to that review.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: On 6 September 2002, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced the appointment of an independent review team, led by Patrick Carter, to take a fundamental look at the operations of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). In particular, the review team was tasked to support the CRB management in the short term and to identify necessary longer-term changes in the way the CRB operates to ensure that it can deliver its twin objectives of providing greater protection for children and vulnerable adults whilst ensuring that the disclosure process does not act as a bar to speedy recruitment.
	We have today placed in the Library the main findings and recommendations of the independent review team.
	We are extremely grateful to Patrick Carter and his two colleagues—John Holden and Ron Skelly—for their rapid and thorough examination of the situation at the CRB and their recommendations on the way forward. The team has come up with a wide ranging set of recommendations for improvements to the CRB intended to enable it to to meet future challenges as demand for its services continues to grow. The CRB is a vital element of the Government's programme to improve the protection of children and vulnerable adults from those who might wish to harm them. It needs to be put on a sounder footing to meet these objectives more effectively and provide the levels of service rightly expected by its customers.
	The independent review team's recommendations build on the steady improvement in the CRB's performance over the past six months which has seen the average number of disclosures issued rise from 24,500 per week in August 2002 to the current 40,000 per week. Some 80 per cent of standard disclosures and 50 per cent of enhanced disclosures are now issued within three weeks. These improvements have been achieved by both the agency and Capita working in partnership to deliver the service that the CRB's customers are entitled to receive.
	The Government propose to take forward the 10 recommendations in the report as follows:
	1 Ways should be sought of optimising the end-to-end CRB process efficiency, by reviewing and rationalising the management responsibilities and respective roles in the complete chain undertaken by Registered Bodies, the CRB Agency, Capita and local police forces.
	The Government agree that the roles of the different parties involved in the CRB process should be strengthened and clarified. In particular, we intend to enhance the intelligent customer function within the agency so that there is a stronger focus on setting standards across the whole operation and ensuring that these are met. There also needs to be better management co-ordination of the CRB end-to-end business processes. This may involve the more flexible deployment of agency and private sector staff and to this end we will take powers in the Criminal Justice Bill to enable the Secretary of State's functions under Part V of the Police Act 1997 to be exercised by the private sector as well as agency staff.
	2 The critical role of Registered Bodies in the CRB process needs to be recognised and upgraded. Registered bodies should be unambiguously responsible for validating the identity of those for whom they seek Disclosures and for ensuring the quality and completeness of applications submitted to the CRB. The number of Registered Bodies should be optimised to establish sensible economies of scale and improve proficiency.
	The Government accept this recommendation and will legislate this Session to make it clear that registered bodies are responsible for verifying the identity of an applicant. It would, as now, be open to a registered body to delegate the function of validating identity to the prospective employer or other agent while retaining overall responsiblity, as long as we are satisfied in a particular case that delegation provides a reasonable safeguard. To ensure that registered bodies discharge their responsibilities effectively, we will take powers to attach conditions to a registration and to revoke a registration where such conditions are breached. We share the review team's view that optimum levels of efficiency within a registered body can best be achieved by handling a sufficient number of disclosure applications. With the new responsibilities for registered bodies, a number of those currently countersigning relatively small numbers of applications may seek to de-register of their own volition. We will monitor the situation carefully. The Government will take reserve powers to set a threshold for the minimum number of applications to be processed by a registered body each year and to de-register those registered bodies which fall below the threshold. Registered bodies and others across the sectors which use the CRB's disclosure service will be fully consulted before those changes are implemented. We will take particular account of concerns that have been expressed about access to registered bodies and the level of fees charged by some umbrella bodies. As part of the consultation exercise, we will seek views on placing a cap on the fees that may be levied by registered bodies.
	3 There shoud be a progressive move to mandate electronic submission of applications by Registered Bodies.
	The CRB will introduce an electronic appplication channel as soon as practicable; a pilot will be undertaken later this year. We believe that many registered bodies will want to adopt this channel as their preferred means of submitting disclosure applications. In time, as more and more registered bodies migrate to the electronic channel there will be a diminishing case, on efficiency grounds, for maintaining the existing paper and telephone channels. At that point, consideration would need to be given whether to mandate—by means of a condition attached to registration—the electronic channel for registered bodies to submit applications to the CRB. This will not preclude individuals submitting their applications to registered bodies by paper or telephone channels where mutually agreed.
	4 Given that the production of Enhanced Disclosures is significantly more costly and ties up local police force resources, new arrangements should be established for the Agency to set priorities, in accordance with Government Guidelines, on which applications should get Enhanced and which should get Standard Disclosures.
	The Government agree with the spirit of this recommendation, but it is important that the criteria are set by Ministers, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, on the basis of a risk assessment. Having established the criteria for standard and enhanced disclosures it is important that there is some mechanism to ensure that they are properly observed. It is proposed, therefore, to amend the Police Act 1997 first to enable the type of disclosure for any given occupational group to be determined by regulations and then to enable the CRB to give effect to such regulations. Where necessary, the CRB would be expected to seek additional information from the registered body in order that it could make its assessment in any given case. We will take account of the views of registered bodies and others before implementing these changes.
	5 It is recommended that the Police National Computer (PNC) files are "flagged" to denote the existence of intelligence information on any individual held at local force level and not included in convictions recorded on the PNC.
	The cost and feasibility of introducing a system of flags on the PNC to denote the existence of local intelligence will be tested in a pilot due to commence in three forces (Metropolitan Police, Staffordshire and West Midlands) in the spring. Decisions about the rollout of such a system will be taken in the light of the outcome of the pilot.
	6 It is recommended that the launch of Basic Disclosures be postponed until the CRB systems have been developed to provide a substantially greater capacity. It would be inappropriate the launch Basic Disclosures until higher priority categories of applicant for higher level Disclosures are seeing their needs fully accommodated. It is also recommended that Basic Disclosure applications should be routed through Registered Bodies, with identity validation undertaken by these Bodies, rather than allow direct submission from applicants as currently envisaged by the legislation.
	The Government concur that the priority for the CRB is to ensure that demand for higher level disclosures is fully met and that applicants for such disclosures receive a satisfactory service. Basic disclosures will not be introduced until these objectives have been achieved. The Government note the case for routing applications for a basic disclosure through a registered body as in the case of standard and enhanced disclosures, but will want to consult fully with employer organisations and others on the implications before coming to a final view. In the event that the Government decide to proceed, legislation would be needed to implement this recommendation.
	7 The Information Technology system built and operated by Capita has been subject to a range of improvements and enhancements since original delivery, as a result of which performance has improved. A further programme of significant enhancement will be required. Additionally, almost all the recommendations set out here would lead to requirements for system change and therefore would have contractual consequences. It is therefore recommended to attempt to renegotiate the contract with Capita to implement necessary technology renewal and align the contract to the changed and evolving circumstances.
	The Government accept this recommendation and will seek to renegotiate the contract with Capita so that it reflects the changed environment in which the CRB will be operating.
	8 An investigation should be undertaken into the possibility of requiring fingerprints to be submitted by applicants for Disclosures where the sensitivity of the employment role to be undertaken makes this appropriate. This would enable a more rigorous linking of police records (which in turn are mostly linked to fingerprints) and the individuals submitting applications for Disclosures. This investigation will need to look at the balance to be struck between such increasing rigour of CRB identity processes and the cost and convenience of the service to the customer.
	The Government will undertake a further study in consultation with registered bodies and others on the case for, and practicalities of, requiring applicants for disclosures in particularly sensitive employment roles to submit their fingerprints with their application. Among the issues the study will need to address is how to avoid any unnecessary intrusion into the privacy of applicants. A decision whether to proceed will be taken in the light of the results of the consultation exercise. Legislation would be needed to implement this change.
	9 While recognising the benefits derived from establishing the CRB under the wing of an existing Agency, it is now recommended that an independent Executive Agency is created within the Home Office to carry forward the CRB's changing and increasingly demanding functions. There will need to be a transitional period which will be overseen by a transitional Management Board operating within an appropriate governance framework.
	The Government agree that the CRB, currently part of the Passport and Records Agency, should be reconstituted as a free-standing agency. The new agency will be established as soon as practicable. A transitional board has been established to ensure a smooth transition. John Holden has agreed to serve as the non-executive chairman of the board and Patrick Carter and Ron Skelley as non-executive members. A stakeholder group will be established under John Holden's chairmanship to represent the interests of government departments and the police.
	10 In order to implement a number of the recommendations, changes to the legislative framework under which the CRB operates (Part V of the Police Act 1997) will be required.
	As indicated above, the Government will take forward in the Criminal Justice Bill the necessary legislative changes needed to implement Recommendations 1, 2 and 4.

London Underground: Public/Private Partnership

Viscount Goschen: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the total cost to the taxpayer, including legal costs, of the dispute between the Government and the Mayor of London in connection with the London Underground public/private partnership.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: The estimated cost to London Transport and to the Department of Transport of preparing for the public/private partnership, including the costs being repaid to all bidders, is likely to total around £500 million. It is not possible to identify how much of this is specifically attributable to the Mayor's opposition.
	In addition, Transport for London would also have expended significant costs. This is a matter for the Mayor.

Airports: Consultation Documents

Lord Burlison: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will publish the revised airports consultation documents.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Last summer the Government published a set of seven consultation papers on the future development of air transport in the United Kingdom.
	On 26 November the High Court upheld a challenge against the exclusion of options for additional runways at Gatwick Airport. On 28 November the Secretary of State for Transport told the House in another place (Official Report, cols. 474–87) that he would not appeal against the judgment, because an appeal would result in an extensive period of uncertainty for people up and down the country. The Government therefore announced that they were keeping open the consultation, which had been due to end on 30 November, and that they would publish a further consultation paper including runway options at Gatwick.
	We are today publishing the further consultation material. We have decided that it would be easier for consultees to publish it in the form of second editions of the full south-east consultation paper, the summary south-east paper and the questionnaires for both the south-east and other areas of the UK. Consultees can easily see the text added as a result of including the Gatwick options.
	The new documents include the original consultation material on options at Heathrow, Stansted, Luton and other south-east airports, and the option for a new airport at Cliffe. In addition, in accordance with the High Court decision, the papers now include options for additional runways at Gatwick.
	As for options on the other south-east airports published last July, the papers now set out for Gatwick all the options which were appraised in detail in the later stages of the South East and East of England Regional Air Services (SERAS) study. Accordingly, there are two options for a single new runway at Gatwick and one option for two new runways there. The papers also set out alternative assumptions on the timing of these Gatwick options.
	The consultation, for all parts of the UK, will now close on 30 June. We will consider carefully all responses received by that date, including proposals for options other than those which have been included in the Government's consultation documents. This is an opportunity for anyone to express their views on all the options in the consultation, as well as to put forward any reasonable alternatives.
	Copies of all the new documents are available in the Printed Paper Office and in the Library. Officials are writing to everyone on the original consultation list, and to all those who have responded to the consultations so far, to alert them to the new documents and to the 30 June deadline, and explaining that people who have already submitted responses can choose either to let their response stand, or to add to, or amend, or withdraw their response in the light of the new material.

Sir William Stubbs: Payment

Baroness Seccombe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What was the source of the £95,000 paid to Sir William Stubbs following his dismissal by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The sum of £95,000 was paid out of existing departmental provision.

Sir William Stubbs: Payment

Baroness Blatch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the breakdown of the £95,000 paid to Sir William Stubbs following his dismissal by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The sum of £95,000 represents a payment in respect of Sir William's lost earnings and his legal costs. The two parties agreed this global sum and have not sought to break it down into its component parts.

learndirect

Baroness Blatch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will supply a breakdown of the budget for learndirect to include annual and total amounts since its inception and a forecast for the next three years; and
	What has been the expenditure of learndirect to date, including the costs of setting-up the organisation, the annual running costs, and the marketing and public relations costs; and
	How many course inquiries have been received by learndirect (a) via the telephone and (b) via the website; how many course bookings have been made; and how many applicants have completed courses.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: We fund Ufi to carry out two functions key to our agenda; to deliver innovative learning through the network of learndirect centres, and to provide the national learndirect information and advice service.
	Ufi receives public funding through two channels. My department makes available an annual grant which funds Ufi's infrastructure and operating costs such as product development. Additional departmental funding provides for the learndirect information and advice service.
	Secondly the Learning and Skills Council funds learning delivered through the network of learndirect centres. In line with government policy Ufi also generates commercial income, for example through the sale and supply of services and products outside of public policy areas. Details of the public funding that Ufi receives area set out in table 1.
	
		Table 1: Total Departmental Funding for Ufi
		
			 Budget 1998–99 1999–2000 2001–01 2001–02 2002–03 Total 
			 General fund £10 million £32 million £67 million £50 million £48 million £207 million 
			 Information and advice service £3.23 million £5 million £10 million £11 million £11 million £40.23 million 
			 Total £13.23 million £37 million £77 million £61 million £59 million £247.23 million 
		
	
	The department covers the difference between Ufi's commercial income and expenditure by making available a grant up to the levels shown above. To date Ufi has not drawn down the maximum grant because of higher than expected levels of income and savings across expenditure headings.
	For 2003–04, the department has secured £44 million for general funding and £12.25 million for the information and advice service. The LSC is making available £159.5 million in 2003–04 for funding learning delivered through learndirect centres.
	We are currently undertaking a review of the DfES/Ufi/LSC relationship to establish a long-term sustainable relationship. This may suggest different organisational and funding implications from those at present. Because of this it will be difficult to forecast expenditure with any certainty beyond 2003–04.
	Ufi also provides the learndirect information and advice service. This is an impartial, comprehensive, national telephone and web-based service available to adults across the country. By using the UK-wide learning opportunities database, advisers are able to direct inquirers to a range of appropriate local learning opportunities. The service does not book potential learners on to learndirect courses. Departmental funding for this is detailed at table 1. To date the learndirect information and advice service has responded to nearly 5,000,000 enquiries via the telephone service. The learndirect website has to date received 9,579,388 hits.
	The Learning and Skills Council, as the national post-16 funding body, funds learning delivered through the learndirect network. The estimated LSC funding used to date is shown in table 2. Ufi has exceeded expectations in terms of course delivery. For example between 1 April 2000 and 31 January 2003, 707,279 individuals registered for 1,566,370 learndirect courses.
	
		Table 2: LSC Funding
		
			 Budget 1998–99 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 
			 LSC funding for 
			 learndirect provision n/a £5 million pilot 
			 funding for 99/00 
			 academic year £28 million for 00/01 
			 academic year £90–110 million for academic year £145.5 million for 
			 financial year 
		
	
	
		Table 3: Ufi Expenditure
		
			 Expenditure 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 Total since inception Budget 2003–04 
			 Marketing and 
			 public relations 
			 costs 
			  £7 million £16 million £15 million £13 million £51 million £15 million 
			 Other setting up 
			 (and other) costs £25 million £49 million £59 million £60 million £193 million £72 million 
			 Information and 
			 advice service 
			 costs inc. 
			 marketing (estimated) £5 million £16 million £17 million £18 million £56 million £19 million 
			 Total £37 million £81 million £91 million £91 million £300 million £106 million 
		
	
	Table 4 below provides a breakdown of Ufi's performance. Ufi was set up to encourage learners, particularly non-traditional learners. Learning provision is therefore provided in easily accessable chunks in contrast to traditional courses. The current course completion rate (on a rolling 12-month basis) is 45.
	
		Table 4: learndirect learners and courses
		
			  1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 forecast Total since Inception 
			 New learners in each year n/a 87,474 246,959 400,000 734,433 
			 Courses sold n/a 196,533 570,882 915,000 1,682,415 
			 Enquiries to the 
			 helpline  1,165,256 1,364,822 1,332,873 1,000,000 4,862,951 
			 Raw Web Sessions 362,158 1,799,381 4,305,828 3,700,000 10,167,367 
			 Eligible advice 
			 sessions n/a n/a 3,485,787 4,700,000 n/a

Wahhabi Teaching in the UK

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What they consider to be the influence and effect of Wahhabi teaching in Islamic educational establishments in the United Kingdom, especially those funded by official or charitable Saudi Arabian sources; whether they have evidence that disrespect and hatred of others may have been inculculated; and if so, what remedies they deem appropriate.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The department does not have any information about the funding or teaching of Wahhabi in the UK. However, all schools, including independent schools are regularly inspected by Ofsted or by the Independent Schools Inspectorate. Any reports that the curriculum was in any way inciting disrespect or hatred of others would be investigated with the individual school and remedial action sought.

NHS Laboratories: Bulk Procurement

Lord Clement-Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they plan to maintain the benefits of bulk procurement in the Public Health Laboratory Service once the network of laboratories fragmented.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We plan that the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency (NHSPASA) should assume responsibility for bulk procurement during 2003–04, as current contracts are completed. Before these transfers, NHSPASA will be putting in place bulk procurement procedures which will be designed to provide equivalent benefits to the current arrangements for all the National Health Service microbiology laboratories.

Antenatal Care

Baroness Cox: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What measures they will take in response to the EuroNational audit of antenatal care reported in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology which places England at the bottom of a list of 10 European countries.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Euronatal study notes a lower rate of perinatal deaths in England compared with most other European countries. Of this low number, the study indicates a relatively high percentage may have been influenced by suboptimal care factors.
	The study also acknowledges that the Confidential Enquiry into Stillbirths and Deaths in Infancy may mean that English cases have been more rigorously analysed than those in other countries.
	The data used is from 1993–98. Antenatal care is only one aspect of suboptimal care contributing to perinatal death, and much has been done in recent years to improve all aspects of maternity care. This includes:
	(i) £100 million investment to modernise over 200 maternity units, which includes purchase of new and replacement equipment, e.g. ultrasound scanners, special care baby cots, etc;
	(ii) Publication of clinical guidelines by National Institute for Clinical Excellence on:
	(a) routine use of Anti D prophylaxis for rhesus negative pregnant women;
	(b) foetal heart monitoring;
	(c) induction of labour;
	(iii) Clinical guidelines from NICE on antenatal care and use of caesarean section including antenatal screening are due later this year. Guidelines on care during delivery and post natal care have recently been commissioned.
	(iv) The development of a children's national service framework, which will set national standards of care for antenatal, intrapartum (delivery) and post natal services;
	(v) Increasing the number of doctors and midwives.

Foetal Alcohol Syndrome

Baroness Cox: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What measures they are taking to ensure that all cases of foetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) are diagnosed properly.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The risks of excessive drinking during pregnancy are well documented, and for this reason the Government recommend that women who are pregnant or who are trying to become pregnant do not drink more than one to two units of alcohol per week.
	The Government are committed to implementing the National Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy by 2004. The strategy will be prepared by the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit, and will be published in summer 2003. The Strategy Unit team will be examining a range of issues relating to the impact of alcohol on health, as well as any additional training which may be needed by medical and other health professionals to improve the care they can give to patients with conditions arising from alcohol misuse.
	Foetal alcohol syndrome is currently recorded on an individual patient's medical records to ensure that health and other professional staff are aware of the situation and can help sufferers to access the support that they need.

Abandoned Vehicles

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the end of life directive for cars will result in increased anti-social car disposal by individuals; and what steps they are taking to avoid an increase in the number of burnt out cars being abandoned by their last owner.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The number of vehicles being abandoned has grown in recent years, largely due to a fall in the price of scrap metal and deficiencies in the accuracy of the vehicle register Implementation of the End of Life Vehicles Directive might lead to a further increase because of a consequential rise in the costs of disposal, but the Government are already addressing the problem with a number of initiatives announced last year. Statutory notice periods after which local authorities can remove abandoned vehicles from the highway have been reduced and can now be as short as 24 hours. We will be consulting in the spring on reducing the statutory notice periods of vehicles abandoned on private land. Local authorities can seek information about the keeper of a vehicle from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) more quickly than before via a new electronic link funded under the Invest to Save programme. In addition, the Finance Act 2002 contained outline powers to establish a system of continuous registration in order to ensure that keepers of vehicles remain responsible for licensing their vehicle until such time that the DVLA has been properly notified of its sale or disposal. The Department for Transport is currently considering how this will be implemented, and will make a announcement in due course. All these measures will make it more difficult for vehicles to be abandoned with impunity.

Coal-mining

Lord Mason of Barnsley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many deep coal-mines are still in production; what are their names; in which region they are; and how many people are employed underground and overall in the coal industry.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: There are currently 12 major deep mines in production in the UK, together with 10 smaller ones. The names of the major deep mines and the regions in which they are located are detailed on the attached table.
	Provisional employment figures for 2002 show that there were 8,167 people employed in underground mines, with a further 2,970 employed in opencast mines. Employment figures include contactors.
	
		Major deep mines in production:
		
			 Name Owner Location 
			 Clipstone(1) UK Coal Nottinghamshire 
			 Daw Mill UK Coal Warwickshire 
			 Ellington UK Coal Northumberland 
			 Harworth UK Coal Nottinghamshire 
			 Kellingley UK Coal North Yorkshire 
			 Maltby UK Coal South Yorkshire 
			 Rossington UK Coal South Yorkshire 
			 Selby Complex(2) UK Coal North Yorkshire 
			 Thoresby UK Coal Nottinghamshire 
			 Welbeck UK Coal Nottinghamshire 
			 Hatfield Coalpower South Yorkshire 
			 Tower Tower Colliery Mid Glamorgan 
		
	
	Notes: In addition, there were 10 smaller deep mines in production in February 2002, including Betws Colliery, operated by Betws Anthracite Ltd, in Carmarthenshire and Hay Royds Colliery, operated by J Flack & Sons Ltd, in Yorkshire.
	(1) Clipstone Colliery is due to cease production in March 2003.
	(2) The Selby Complex consists of Riccall, Wistow and Stillingfleet mines and is due to close by spring 2004.
	Sources: The Coal Authority, DTI publications.

Telephone Boxes in Rural Areas

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Rural Affairs Forum and their rural advocate have given any advice with regard to BT's decision to remove telephone boxes from rural areas; and if so, how many telephone boxes are scheduled for removal in the next two years.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The regulation of telecoms operators is a matter for Oftel. I understand that no advice has been received by Oftel on the removal of telephone boxes from rural areas from the Rural Affairs Forum or its rural advocate. BT is subject to a universal service obligation to provide public call boxes throughout the UK (except Hull). Removal of a call box from a single site is subject to a consent procedure. The procedure is set out in guidelines published by BT and agreed by Oftel. Any removal of a single site call box requires the consent of the local authority and the relevant parish council (if any).

Telephone Boxes in Rural Areas

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What representations they have received about the removal of telephone boxes from rural areas by BT in the past twelve months; from whom; and what action they have taken as a result.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The regulation of telecoms operators is a matter for Oftel. I understand that in December 2002 Oftel published a statement setting out its conclusions in relation to revised guidelines on removal of telephone boxes. Oftel has received a number of representations in recent weeks about the removal of telephone boxes in rural areas and is discussing them with BT.

Olympic Games

Lord Jopling: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will study any bloodshed, boycott or blackmail in past Olympic Games in assessing the desirability of bringing the event to London.

Baroness Blackstone: The Government assessment on whether they should bid to host the Olympic Games has included an analysis of the impact of the Games in other Olympic cities. This has included the Games held in Munich 1972 and Atlanta 1996, where there was bloodshed, and Moscow 1980 and Los Angeles 1984, which were subject to boycotts. The Government have also assessed the new criteria issued by the International Olympic Committee on the current rules of conduct applicable to cities wishing to organise the Olympic Games. The Government recognise that we face dangers in staging major events and that security consideration are of great importance.

National Scrapie Plan

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many sheep have been genotyped since the launch in July 2001 of the National Scrapie Plan; and how many, by breed, have so far been culled as a result.

Lord Whitty: Since the launch of the voluntary National Scrapie Plan, up to the 13 February 2003, a total of 352,753 sheep in 8,685 flocks have been genotyped. This includes 21,710 in 866 flocks tested as part of a survey of rare breed genotypes (for which there are no culling requirements). Under the terms of the plan's ram genotyping schemes, NSP members with rams carrying one or two copies of the scrapie susceptible VRQ allele, have agreed that under normal circumstances these rams will be slaughtered or otherwise prevented breeding by castration or vasectomy. Instructions to slaughter or castrate 8,112 rams have so far been dispatched, of which confirmation of slaughter or castration has been received for 5,956. The remainder are either ram lambs that are being fattened for slaughter, or rams (with 1 VRQ allele) that are being used by agreement with the flock owner in controlled breeding programmes because there is a particularly low level of resistance conferring genotypes in the flock, or rams that are subject to a reminder instruction to slaughter. The number of rams by breed for which confirmation of slaughter/castration has been received is as follows:
	
		
			 Sheep Breed Confirmation of  slaughter/castration (as at 13 February 2003) 
			 Badger Faced Welsh Mountain 21 
			 Beltex 26 
			 Beulah Speckled Face 115 
			 Black Welsh Mountain 73 
			 Blackface 626 
			 Bleu du Maine 58 
			 Bluefaced Leicester 44 
			 Border Leicester 136 
			 Brecknock Hill Cheviot 103 
			 British Inra 401 2 
			 Charmoise 5 
			 Charollais 310 
			 Cheviot 544 
			 Clun Forrest 6 
			 Cotentin 1 
			 Dalesbred 7 
			 Derbyshire Gritstone 26 
			 Devon Closewool 14 
			 Dorest Horn & Poll Dorset 186 
			 Dorset Down 1 
			 Easycare 11 
			 Exmoor Horn 24 
			 Friesland 4 
			 Galway 3 
			 Greyfaced Dartmoor 17 
			 Hampshire Down 1 
			 Herdwick 112 
			 Hill Radnor 6 
			 Ile De France 12 
			 Kerry Hill 1 
			 Leicester Longwool 8 
			 Lincoln Longwool 5 
			 Llandovery 10 
			 Lleyn 84 
			 Lonk 15 
			 Meatlinc 54 
			 North Country Cheviot 762 
			 Romney 24 
			 Rouge de L'Ouest 21 
			 Rough Fell 10 
			 Roussin 10 
			 Shetland 76 
			 South Wales Mountain 96 
			 Suffolk 65 
			 Swaledale 115 
			 Talybont 112 
			 Teeswater 44 
			 Texel 1,184 
			 Welsh Hill Speckled Face 65 
			 Welsh Mountain 56 
			 Welsh Mountain 523 
			 Wensleydale 39 
			 White Face Dartmoor 4 
			 White Faced Woodland 1 
			 Wiltshire Horn 69 
			 Zwartbles 9 
			 Total 5,956

Pest Control: Use of Dogs

Earl Peel: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What qualifications the registrar will seek from those wishing to obtain a licence to use terriers to locate and bolt foxes and mink from underground for pest control purposes;[HL
	What can replace the use of terriers to locate and bolt foxes and mink from underground, should any person be unsuccessful in obtaining a licence from the registrar and;[HL
	If the Hunting Bill were to receive Royal Assent, what advice they would to give to gamekeepers using dogs to flush a wild mammal from cover who find themselves in a situation whereby they cannot take a safe shot to despatch the wild mammal and;
	Why a registered gamekeeper using dogs to control mammals may expect an inspector from a prescribed animal welfare body to accompany him or her whilst carrying out these pest control measures.[HL

Lord Whitty: On 25 February, the Standing Committee in another place added a clause to the Hunting Bill which would prevent the registration of hunting in respect of any hunting that involves the use of a dog below ground. My right honourable friend the Minister for Rural Affairs made it clear that the Government would bring forward amendments at a later stage of the Bill to meet the legitimate needs of gamekeepers, in particular to use dogs underground in certain specified circumstances and subject to conditions designed to prevent unnecessary suffering. His remarks were warmly welcomed by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation. My right honourable friend is considering the details of the amendments at the moment and will have regard to the concerns which underlie the noble Earl's questions.

Beef Special Premium Scheme

The Earl of Caithness: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What percentage of claims for the Beef Special Premium Scheme were queried by producers in 2002 because the British Cattle Movement Service records differed from those held by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.[HL
	 Question number missing in Hansard, possibly truncated question.

Lord Whitty: The Rural Payments Agency does not have data relating solely to the Beef Special Premium Scheme. However, it is estimated that producers made 20,000 representations in 2002 in relation to all bovine subsidy claims because the British Cattle Movement Service records differed from those held by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. This represents 7 per cent of the total bovine subsidy claims received.

Cattle Movements

The Earl of Caithness: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have any record of how many cattle movement cards were lost in 2002 by either the Post Office or the British Cattle Movement Service.[HL
	 Question number missing in Hansard, possibly truncated question.

Lord Whitty: The British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS) scans, records and interprets all movement cards received immediately. This can be up to 45,000 cards per day. No loss of cards has been detected by the BCMS. The Post Office has informed us that its loss rate is one in 100,000 documents sent to the BCMS.

Cattle Movements

The Earl of Caithness: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why the British Cattle Movement Service will not issue receipts for cattle movement orders.[HL
	 Question number missing in Hansard, possibly truncated question.

Lord Whitty: Keepers who send movement information to the British Cattle Movement Service through its website can see that a transaction has been recorded by revisiting the site the next day. Those who send movement data through the bulk e-mail system will receive a file receipt notification from BCMS for every file they send.
	The barrier to the issue of a receipt for each movement card received by the BCMS is cost. With up to 48,000 movement cards received in a single day last year the logistics of producing and despatching receipts for them all are daunting. With the waiver to industry bearing the full cost of the BCMS services due to expire on 31 March 2004, the cost of the production of receipts (manpower, materials and postage) would be passed directly to industry. The cost could be over £10,000 per day, just for receipts.

Assured Chicken Production Scheme

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will reconsider the decision of June 2002 to reverse the ban on antibiotic growth promoters under the Assured Chicken Production scheme.[HL
	 Question number missing in Hansard, possibly truncated question.

Lord Whitty: Assured Chicken Production is an independent company that owns and develops the Assured Chicken Production Scheme (ACP) standards for poultry. Members of the company are British Retail Council, British Poultry Council (BPC) and the National Farmers' Unions of England and Wales. Decisions about the standards for this scheme are taken by ACP's technical advisory committee, not by the Government.

Zootechnical Feed Additives: Ionophores

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have consulted the Veterinary Residues Committee and the Food Standards Agency about the use of ionophores, including Nicarbazin, Dimetridazole, Narasin and Lasalocid, in poultry and game food; and, if so, with what result.

Lord Whitty: Zootechnical feed additives, including those containing ionophores, are centrally authorised under Council Directive 70/524/EEC for use in all EU member states. Applications for authorisations are individually assessed by the Standing Committee for Food Chain and Animal Health (Animal Nutrition) against a set of scientific criteria to assure their safety, quality and efficacy. This committee is chaired by the European Commission and includes representatives from all EU member states. UK representatives include officials from the Food Standards Agency as well as the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, an executive agency of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
	Dimetridazole and Narasin are no longer authorised for use as zootechnical feed additives for food producing animals.
	In March 2001 the Veterinary Residues Committee (VRC) established a sub-group to look at the risks from residues of medicinal and zootechnical feed additives (including ionophores) in meat and other food products. This sub-group has not yet provided any advice to government on these issues.

Drift Net Fishing

Lord Mason of Barnsley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the up-to-date position on the question of ending the North Sea drift net fishery.

Lord Whitty: In their formal response to the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Review Group report, the Government announced they would provide up to £750,000, subject to match funding from private interests, towards the voluntary buy-out of mixed stock salmon drift net fisheries in England. Efforts are focusing on the largest of these that fish off the north-east coast of England.
	Constructive negotiations between the drift netsmen and conservation and riparian interests, assisted by the Environment Agency and Defra, are ongoing.

Drift Net Fishing

Lord Mason of Barnsley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What recent discussions they have had with the Irish Republic with a view to ending drift net fishing in Irish waters to release salmon into Welsh and western English rivers.

Lord Whitty: No formal discussions have been held with the Irish Government about drift netting in Irish waters.